About your Search

20130416
20130424
STATION
MSNBCW 11
CNNW 10
KTVU (FOX) 1
LANGUAGE
English 23
Search Results 0 to 22 of about 23 (some duplicates have been removed)
're hearing, it was that lowest threshold. >> now, senator lindsey graham is saying there was misspelled paperwork in the form of misspelled names. which resulted in a failure to follow up these individuals. is it really possible that a simple spelling error may have caused a breakdown in the communication here? >> i -- short answer, i don't know in this case. however, i will tell you that transliteration, in particular from arabic, for example, translated to english, vice versa, at times can cause con nu confusion to the system but not a breakdown. >> the relationship between intelligence agencies here and russia and perhaps a lack of cooperation between the two. >> well, at least through my time in government, with most allied countries and even nominal allies, at the law enforcement level and intel, usually quite good. it's kind of a comrade in arms type approach. there is, however, though, martin, sometimes there are political considerations. we don't know if we have that here. but in this case, if there was something really compelling on the russian side, it brings up the question,
heard in that report from mike emanuel, lindsey graham, republican from south carolina said let's go quickly. essentially we have terrorists in our midst. we might. let's find out who all of these 11 million people who have come here illegally are but does anyone think that terrorists will step to the front of the line to register? >> you know, look. this is the broader question of will, will this immigration reform bill make us safer? i think gram gram overstated the argument, you're right. -- lindsey graham. you're a terrorist attempting to be member of a sleeper cell it is unclear you will necessarily surface as this proposed new law requires you to do and make yourself known to authorities. on the other hand here is the ironic thing. in a way the bill could make us safer from this perspective. the two brothers came here when their family came here. their family came here look like they had other families already here. the parents of two the brothers had a brother, their uncle already here in the united states and they therefore appear like they might have come here, they got extr
cain, lindsey graham, they are suggesting. >> that could take him out of the american criminal justice system and put him into some other kind of system. it's not quite clear. a military tribunal, perhaps being sent to guantanamo. in any case the obama administration has shown absolutely no interest in that idea and every indication is that he will be tried as a criminal defendant in an american criminal courtroom. >> lindsey graham who himself is a military attorney, has spent 30 years in the u.s. air force, he insists he wants tsarnaev to be tried in american civilian court, but that didn't preclude at least for now naming him an enemy combatant to try to question him to see if there are other bombs out there, other individuals who may be involved. sort of this imminent threat notion. is he on sound legal ground, lindsey graham, when he says, yes, he'll go before a civil trial, but at least for now name him an enemy combatant so he can be questioned? >> well, the obama administration has established a policy of a so-called public safety exception to the miranda rule where for some period of
by using the normal criminal procedures. >> because lindsey graham and others say, yes, he should be tried as a u.s. citizen, should be tried in a u.s. civilian court, but that can await this process of doing some serious interrogation of him and designating him as an enemy combatant in the meantime. all of this is moot right now, because as you know, yesterday, he was formally given his miranda rights and a judge magistrate at his bed side with a court-appointed attorney, a public defender. this is moot as the obama administration has made its decision. is lindsey graham on sound legal ground, saying he should be tried in a civilian court, but held and questioned as an enemy combatant? >> i think the only fair answer to that question is we don't know. because it's never been done before in american history to have some sort of hybrid combatant and criminal proceeding. we do know from jake tapper's reporting, there was an interrogation of tsavraev. and he did disclose his position that there was no broader conspiracy here. just him and his pressure. it seems like the justice department and
debate, he fled with his tail between his legs. senator lindsey graham and senator talked about obama not try him as an enemy combatants. it was said to see him go, he was a fine figure and a state senator, isn't it? >> al a high state legislature is much more sophisticated than we saw here today. >> let's talk about lindsey graham. sang the government should have left dzhokhar tsarnaev as an enemy combat and, at least on the table as a possibility. >> it is not permissible under the law. you cannot treat an american citizen who is accused of committing an american crime against mostly american citizens in boston as an enemy combatants. it would turn our country -- >> it has never happened before. >> into martial law. the supreme court struck that down and american citizens were charged with crimes and this fellow is being charged with an ordinary crime that anybody could be charged with the team made a bomb to kill his mother-in-law. it does not require any allegation of terrorism. the idea we can deny and trial by jury, speedy trial, all of the things in the constitution and the bil
a top republican like lindsey graham. >> the only thing you need to know about lindsey gram right now is that he's running for re-election. even though he knows better, even though he knows that dzhokhar, for example, is not going to be tried as an enemy combatant, even though he knows his allegations against the president are ridiculous, it's a way of him scoring political points. i'll say, you know, i don't think there's anything wrong as you were pointing out asking questions about, okay, did the fbi follow the right course here? >> the investigation. >> absolutely. but when you go for this nakedly political point instead, you actually undermine those sorts of honest investigations. because it turns it into political football rather than a real inquiry into what happened and if there was anything we could do or anything we could learn. >> i think, joan, there is a legitimate questions one could raise, whether i agree with them or you agree with them or not. >> right. >> but to rev up benghazi, too? it is clear they're trying to get all kind of old political points, mixing in with n
's what's interesting -- both lindsey graham and senator schumer who were on the show are members of that gang of eight that came up with this bipartisan reform for the immigration system. we've now heard opponents of the immigration system saying this is another reason why we need to take a look at what's going on here. you get the feel the slow walk is beginning. boert senator graham and senator schumer make the case this is the time for emigration reform. 40% i believe is the figure of the folks who are in the united states without documentation have overstayed their visas and they say that within their legislation is a mechanism and a system through which that will no longer be the case, that when people are in this country, you will know who they are. now let's remember that one of these young men -- the yucker brother was a u.s. citizen, the other was a permanent resident. i don't know how far that kind of system would reach out. but nonetheless, they think that now is the precise time to have immigration reform, not a time to slow it down. >> candy crowley, thanks so much,
to change. >> lindsey graham is doing a whole bunch of talk radio this morning. it's clear to me, we know why they probably booked all these interviews. because they're worried that this is where the immigration issue could percolate where all of the sudden the connection to boston happens. >> i think it also shows that compared to the last time around in '06 and '07 the republicans who were for this type of legislation are a lot more active in trying to engage with the conservative critics. >> dan, that does seem to be a huge difference before, they would lament maybe to you in interviews. but they wouldn't actively try to fix this. >> yeah. you know, they're pushing forward in a way they weren't before. they're much more confident about the reasons why they're doing this. and they're -- they feel much less defensive about it when they're being criticized by their own people. >> at the press conference amongst the most eloquent were marco rubio. the marco rubio. >> you were there. richard. this was the most fascinating -- >> it's a definition of kumbaya. >> it got those many votes. stick
senators includes lindsey graham called for. senator graham challenged them saying the decision they made premature. let's listen. >> here's my concern. as a lawyer for over 30 years, civilian and military, i strongly support the concept that no criminal defendant should ever be required to incriminate themselves while they're in custody of the government. every nation at war should have the ability to defend themselves by gathering intelligence. these are not mutually exclusive concepts. i believe our nation is at war. the enemy is radical islam defined as the taliban, al qaeda, and affiliated groups. the question i have regarding this case, is there any association between these two individuals and the groups i just named, to allow enemy combatant status to be conferred upon the suspect in boston? >> let's drill down on the legal status of the boston bombing suspect. kendall coffey. the great jonathan turley, here in washington. thank you for this. can they decide later if a piece of evidence shows up a week from now, that shows a connection, e-mail, whatever, connection with al qaeda,
. again, on this sunday. mike, thanks. >>> south carolina senator lindsey graham is leading the charge to label the boston marathon suspect an enemy combatant. he explained why on cnn this morning. take a listen. >> when the public safety exception expires and it will soon this man, in my view, should be designated as a potential enemy combatant and we should be allowed to question him for intelligence gathering purposes to find out about future attacks and terrorist organizations that may exist that he has knowledge of and that evidence cannot be used against him in trial. >> the american civil liberties union, aclu, opposes this, "we must not waiver from our tried and true justice system, even in the most difficult of times. denial of rights is un-american and will only make it harder to obtain a fair conviction." how will this play out politically? with me, stephen smith of "the boston globe," dave weigel and lynn sweet of the chicago sun-times. good to see you all on this sunday. lynn, let me start with you here at least. four our republican senators joined in lindsey graham's call
an extended trip to russia last year. today on cnn's "state of the union" senator lindsey graham said there were plenty of clues that tsarnaev had been radicalized. >> the ball was dropped in one of two ways. the fbi missed a lot of things, is one potential answer. or our laws do not allow the fbi to follow-up in a sound, solid way. there was a lot to be learned from this guy. he was on websites talking about killing americans. he went overseas, as chuck indicated. he was clearly talking about radical ideas. he was visiting radical areas. it's people like this that you don't want to let out of your sight. and this was a mistake. i don't know if our laws are insufficient or the fbi failed, but we're at war with radical islamists and we need to up our game. >> the chairman of the house homeland security committee is also weighing in on this topic. he told our candy crowley that tamerlan tsarnaev received what he called training while in russia and he thinks tsarnaev made more than one trip to the region. we are learning more about the suspects from the russian republic of dagestan where
out to marco rubio and john mccain and lindsey graham, who aren't backing down, and free advice to the republican party. the republican party lost the hispanic vote huge time, and if there isn't some effort to reach out for a lot of the people who live in this country, you can kiss off any chance, bill, for any foreseeable future. >> yeah, bill. let me just say, on bill's defense, he's actually pro immigration reform. >> i'm more skeptical of it now than i was six or seven months ago, and again for this reason, with all due respect. let's have serious public policy arguments about this. let's talk about how this man, reported by the fbi in 2011, went to russia for six months, came back in the country with a russian or kyrgyz passport. let's have border security first. >> the bill is based on border security. >> and would it help with this problem? >> we should ask these questions. we should maybe have more detailed questions asked for people who come from certain countries, yes. >> we agree on that. >> thank you, panel. see you next week. make sure to follow us on twitter @foxne
countries -- cases in this country. today senator lindsey graham urged the white house to reconsider its decision. >> i'm asking this administration to leave on the table the option if the effort warrants to designate this individual as an enemy combatant. the ability to have access to this suspect without a lawyer present together intelligence about a future attack is absolutely essential to our national security. >> democratic congressman adam shift, a member of the house intelligence committee is "outfront" and he is also a former federal prosecutor. we now that dzhokhar, suspect number two, has been read his miranda rights. sow won't be designated as an enemy combatant. but if he was labelled an enemy combatant, he wouldn't have been entitled to a lawyer and a jury trial. they could have asked him a lot of other questions without a lawyer present that may or may not be relevant to national security. now why did they make this decision not to go for enemy combatant status? do they think they have so much evidence in this case that they can go ahead with the civilian jury trial and the
like rubio, on somebody like lindsey graham up for re-election. on somebody even like john mccain and jeff blake. so it's not impossible for this to occur, but it got a whole lot more difficult. >> joy, here's how the "national review" captured rubio's visit there. "it was striking to see how much he is personally admired by the colorful conservative pundits who broadcast on local a.m. stations, and by the biggest syndicated names like limbaugh. they still believe, without a doubt, that he's a top contender for the republican presidential nomination in 2016 and they love that he's already a national force. but when it comes to immigration, they're not buying it." >> yeah. >> why? >> well, because, you know, at the end of the day the o's at the end of rubio's first and last names are quite valuable to the republican party as an avatar for bringing in more hispanic voters. the ideas he's saying are not useful. it's been kind of pathetic to see marco rubio, supposedly this towering figure, latino ronald reagan of the republican party going hat in hand to radio hosts, begging them
an enemy combatant are those republicans, among them john mccain and lindsey graham. but there's others, they say basically he should be treated as an enemy combatant for now and then handed over to civilian authorities. the information we're learning about his inability to communicate right now throws a wrench into a lot of that. but on the other side, we heard today from the chairman of the intelligence committee of the house, mike rogers, and here is his perspective on why he should not be treated like an enemy combatant. >> he's a citizen of the united states. i think that brings all of the protections of the u.s. constitution. under the public safety exception, however, i do believe that the fbi has a period of time to try to determine what threats are there today. we don't know if there's other devices. we don't know if there's other people. i think mirandizing him up front would be a horrible idea. >> so there are really a series of questions there. first, should he be treated as a criminal -- excuse me, as a -- i want to make sure i get it right, as an enemy combatant. that ques
including john mccain and lindsey graham, they have suggested that e he should be treated as an enemy combat t combatant. let me read from the statement just released. the suspect based upon his actions, clearly is a good candidate for enemy combatant sts. we are encouraged to have our team involved and working together intelligence about how these terrible acts were committed and the possible of future attacks. a decision to not read miranda rights to the suspect was sound and in our national security interests. but they go one step further, avery, and say he shouldn't be tried as a normal u.s. citizen but an enemy combatant. what do you say to senator mccain, senator graham, peter king of the house intelligence committee who all four of them have issued this statement? >> respectfully, wolf, this is an american citizen naturalized committing alleged crimes on american soil. there's no question but that this case belongs in an article three a federal district court. the federal courts in boston have an enormous experience in dealing with terrorism. i'm mystified at that kind of statement.
, lindsey graham, kelly ayotte, peter king, they released a statement, the suspect, based upon his actions, clearly is a good candidate for enemy combat tant status. we do not want the suspect to remain silent. we have concerns that limiting this investigation to 48 hours and exclusively relying on the public safety exception to miranda could very well be a national security mistake. is this realistic he would be named as an enemy combat talent, denying him rights even though's u.s. citizen, he was naturalized on september 11th of last year and he was arrested in the united states? >> no, this is a deep philosophical division between the obama administration and some of the republican -- sorry about this and what that means is the obama administration has said the criminal justice system can make this work, the criminal can handle national security risks like this person, terrorists have been prosecuted, moussaoui. this administration is committed to using the american courts there are some critics, like senator mccain, like senator graham, who say that's too big a risk, that we have too m
's some talk in washington, senator lindsey graham among others, saying that he should be treated as an enemy combatant, at least for a time, to get as much information as they can during the investigation. what's your feeling on that? >> well, i think, first of all, you need the right facts in order to be able to charge that. the federal government is still determining what was the motive of these two young men. are they connected to anybody else? until they do that work, until we finish this investigation, that question may even be premature, unless you have a basis for it. i do think that the federal government has had a good track record in civil cases here, understanding what forum people should be in in order to get the best information. but i think we have to be confident. i am, having worked with them this week, is that they're focused on getting information they need to bring the appropriate charges. they can always be updated. and i think that they will make the right decision based upon what they know about this investigation. >> we heard from the boston police commissi
senator lindsey graham, specifically from senator john mccain for the suspect to be treated as an enemy combatant. how is legal action at this point most likely to move forward? >> reporter: well, the obama administration would never go for that, partly as a policy matter. they have made it quite clear that civilian courts are up to the task and they think in many ways better than military tribunals which are untested. civilian courts have convicted lots of terrorism defendants. it will be a federal case. they'll charge him withes with use of a weapons of mass destruction. the maximum penalty is the death penalty. the government will have to decide whether to seek that or not. there's an additional wrinkle here. he is an american citizen. he was a naturalized citizen last year oddly on 9/11 of last year, and there is an open legal question about whether even if the government wanted to, it could declare an american citizen captured on u.s. soil as an enemy combatant. it's an untested question. the government tried to do it in the case of jose padilla several years ago and as that case w
got in terms of a note that was handed to me talking about a few senators, lindsey graham, john mccain, kelly ayotte, congressman peter king, all of whom have said this suspect based on his actions clearly is a good candidate for enemy combatant status. we do not want this suspect to remain silent. talk about that in terms of what prosecutors are doing right now. is that the path down which prosecutors and any investigators are going right now? >> well, it's unclear whether or not they're going down that path to identify and designate him as an enemy combatant but they should at least go down the path to determine whether or not that is the designation they should make for this particular person. then they should do it based on our national security, national interest to determine whether or not identifying him as an enemy combatant will actually enhance our national security and national interest. >> what about the charges? what do you expect them to be against dzhokhar. >> well, if he's not designated as an enemy combat eant he wille charged federally. the first decision has to b
, republican senators lindsey graham, kelly ayotte, congressman peter king a short time ago, issued a statement this morning asking for the suspect to be tried as an enemy combatant. they said, in part, "we do not want the suspect to remain silent." senator chambliss, vice chair of the subcommittee on violence said "i'm disappointed that it appears this administration is once again relying on miranda's public safety exception to gather intelligence which only allows, at best, a 48-hour waiting period that may expire since the suspect has been critically wounded." will there be a public outcry, ed o'keefe, about all that's given, the suspect is a natural citizen? >> with those five senators -- lawmakers, certainly the outcry could potentially be beginning. it's no surprise that that quintet, if you will, is calling for the administration to handle him as what they describe as an enemy combat talent. the obama administration doesn't use that term anymore it allows for an indefinite detention of someone under national security concerns. that's what they are hoping for. we will see what the justice
, or was this a conspiracy. that's where our focus is right now. >> i want to play for you what republican senator lindsey graham said after the white house announced earlier in the day that the survivining suspec the 19-year-old, would not be questioned as an enemy combat t combatant. listen to this. >> i'm asking this administration to leave on the table the option, if the evidence warrants, to designate this individual as an enemy combatant. what do we know? we know that these two individuals embrace radical islamist thought, that there's ample evidence this was an attack inspired by radical ideology, they were not trying to rob a bank in boston. >> what do you think about that, congressman? >> well, fifrst thing, i respec the senator's point of view, but i disagree. number one, you have to look at the legal aspect of this. when that provision that you don't have to give miranda rights is used, that -- you have to show a connection to al qaeda. in this situation, we at this point have no connection to al qaeda whatsoever. so the other issue is, this is an american citizen. when you have an american ci
Search Results 0 to 22 of about 23 (some duplicates have been removed)